Another voice
The wrong idea
Auberon Waugh
1\To doubt the Ionian island of Cephalonia, or Kefallinia as the ig- norant Greeks insist on calling it, was a sen- sible place for Common Market ministers to hold an informal meeting. Where public office is less and less accompanied by even the illusion of power there must be some compensations. But the rest of the world may be excused for wondering whether Mr Lawson, sitting in his swimming trunks before tables groaning with moussaka and houmous, retsina and skidalia, may not have been visited by the sort of optimism which sustained Penelope, on neighbouring Ithaca, during the 20 years while Odysseus was away having the time of his life with Calypso and Circe and other charmers.
Rising from table to lick the taramasalata from his fingers, Lawson assured Mr Alan Osborn, Common Market correspondent of the Times, that Britain's economic recovery was well under way. He said that we would enjoy two and a half per cent growth this year, and recovery 'would be continuing throughout 1984'.
This directly contradicts not only the CBI survey which suggested a lower growth rate than was expected, and which prophesied a falling off next year, but also the gloomy predictions of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which have never been infected by the CBI's post-election euphoria. Personally, I tend to disregard anything put out by the CBI as being in- spired by politically motivated cowards and weasels. Similarly, most people will tend to disregard anything said about the economy by a politician — especially if it is cheerful from the government side or gloomy from the opposition side.
Obviously, I do not have the faintest idea which side is telling the truth — nor, I im- agine, does anyone else, least of all the cocksure City folk in tight waistcoats who talk to each other at private dinner parties in loud, competitive voices. My purpose in drawing attention to the discrepancy is not even to raise the age-old question of whether we really want any growth. If the British economy were to start growing again it would only mean that the hideous, farting businessmen of Taunton would resume pulling down whatever few decent buildings remain, the lower classes would make even more noise and stink, leave even more litter and build new and grosser monuments to their base preferences. But I suppose we must accept that democratic government has to ensure a reasonable level of prosperi- ty to survive, and however little we may care about its survival ourselves, we cannot expect our politicians — with the promise of happy weeks on Kefallinia with like- minded friends — to share our perception.
But accepting that politicians must somehow contrive to keep the economy on an even keel without rocking the boat too much, and allowing that their fantasy ex- istence may include the dream of scattering plenty o'er a smiling land, I still question the convention by which politicians in of- fice feel bound to present a rosy picture, politicians in opposition a gloomy one. I should have thought that it was in the in- terests of both of them to project the op- posite idea.
Perhaps I had better explain. Obviously, one is reluctant to challenge any established institution in public life, and the pattern of lies told by public men and women must have had good reasons for its establish- ment. But let us examine its application in the prevailing mood . . . Regardless or not of whether our economy is recovering, what is the likely result of people believing that happy days are here again? What is the like- ly result of people believing, on the con- trary, that we are teetering on the edge of national bankruptcy, with Lawson struggl- ing night and day to keep us propped up?
In the old days there was something call- ed foreign confidence in the pound which made it necessary for Chancellors to lie un- til they were blue in the face to convince the world that we were doing splendidly. Nowadays, with North Sea oil and an adverse balance in manufactured goods, it does not matter in the least if foreigners lose confidence. It might be rather better if they did, since the price of North Sea oil is tied to the dollar, anyway. The only effect of people believing that the economy is recovering will be domestic: enormous pressure on wages and, further, huge demands on public spending. Even if these can be contained, the effect on the nation's political psychology will be even more pro- found. Millions of voters who (like me) were frightened into voting Conservative last time will begin to think they might allow themselves the luxury of a vote for Shirley Williams, or even nice Mr Kinnock who now seems concerned to woo the middle-class vote.
Certainly Mrs Thatcher has done little enough to woo mine. Quite apart from the personal affront of her continued vendetta against the patient, long-suffering Mr Worsthorne, she has failed to abolish capital transfer tax as she promised to do when it was introduced; she has failed to make school fees or private health tax- allowable, or abolish the surcharge on sav- ings income, or long-term capital gains tax. My point is not that Mr Kinnock is likely to do any of these things, although even he has
started to make the right noises: Labour must 'drop its image as the party obsessed with the needs of deprived minorities and boost its appeal to the more prosperous voters . . we can only protect the disad- vantaged in our society if we appeal also to those who are relatively advantaged.' But really all Mr Kinnock has to do to be elected is to persuade the country it can af- ford a Labour government — and Mr Lawson is doing this for him. Nobody real- ly likes the Tories, with their passion for hanging people, their cruel treatment of de.- cent old political commentators, their unpleasant ways of eating kebabs and she folio. I don't think I would ever vote Labour — certainly not with the disgusting Mr Hattersley as its deputy leader — but any half-reasonable, unfrightening Labour Party would be the natural choice of the modern Britain emerging from Mrs Williams's comprehensive schools. Let us now examine the likely results of convincing the country that its economic plight is very grave indeed. This was Mr Foot's constant refrain throughout the elec- tion campaign, and we all saw the conse- quences of that. He made the additional mistake of promising massive, instant ac- tion, which frightened people still further. The plain truth is that nobody expects a Labour government to be any good at runn- ing the economy. A Labour vote is a 10' ury, a sop to our feelings of envy, .nr benevolence or guilt, and before we can dulge in such luxuries we must be persuaded we can afford them. So if logic prevailed, Mr Lawson should be inviting us to look on the gloomiest possible side: the Government is struggling, manfully to keep us afloat, against the dean weight of the unions who prevent anY vestment by overmanning and restrictive practices, punitive taxation which kills all initiative, and a grotesquely inflated arMY of civil servants who gobble up all resources intended for the sick, the old and the disad- vantaged. Mr Kinnock, on the other hand, should be painting the rosiest possible Pic" ture of an economy booming — not as the result of government policy, of course, but as the result of North Sea oil coupled to t.he sweat and sacrifice of the British working man. Kinnock would probably be abl.e.tn talk of the sweat and sacrifice of the British working man with a straight face. Thenf people might believe him when he talks his plans for sharing out the wealth among the disadvantaged, single mothers, lesbians. Neither of thes postures need be In- fluenced the slightest bit by how t,h,e economy is in fact faring. The Bring' economy is a meaningless abstraction; None of us knows how it is faring, and oniY fools pretend to care. I know that I am dn.' i ng reasonably well, apart from .8 preposterous tax demand which arrived. in. July, to be repeated in December, win°, destroys every illusion of well-being an gives the lie to anything which any Conser- vative politician has ever said on anY soh' ject.
Previous page
